Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-891.
June 20, 2003.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2003, upon consideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant City of Philadelphia [doc. no. 10], and Plaintiff's response thereto [doc. no. 12], including the memoranda of law submitted by the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint and all claims against the Defendant City of Philadelphia are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant City of Philadelphia and against Plaintiff Akim Harris on all counts.
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the record in the above captioned matter and notes that Plaintiff Akim Harris has failed to produce any evidence, discovery, records or documents that would support a § 1983 claim against the City of Philadelphia. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to identify any policy or custom adopted by the City of Philadelphia with respect to any violation of his rights. See Monell v. Dep't. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (holding that a city cannot be held liable under a respondeat superior theory); Garvin v. City of Philadelphia, No. Civ.A.02-2214, 2003 WL 402247, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2003) (citing Berg v. County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 275 (3d Cir. 200) cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1072 (2001)) (explaining that a plaintiff "must demonstrate that the violation of [his] rights was caused by a policy or a custom that has been adopted by the City").
In addition, Plaintiff's state law claims of negligence, assault and battery, false arrest and false imprisonment against the City of Philadelphia must fail as they are barred by the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8541 et seq.; see also Agresta v. City of Philadelphia, 694 F. Supp. 117, 123-24 (E.D. Pa. 1988) (explaining that state law grants immunity to a municipality from intentional torts because a showing of actual malice or willful misconduct is required);Lesher v. Colwyn Borough, No. Civ.A02-1333, 2002 WL 31012959, at *6 (Sept. 6, 2002) (explaining that municipal immunity from negligence will only be abrogated in eight narrowly defined exceptions which include (1) vehicle liability; (2) the care, custody and control of personal property; (3) the care, custody and control of real property; (4) trees, traffic controls and street lighting; (5) utility service facilities; (6) streets; (7) sidewalks; and (8) the care, custody and control of animals).
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case for statistical purposes.